baddeal2015

Dear Captain,

I was out on disability for quite some time and recently returned to flight status.Along with our crew force, I have been following the negotiating process and was cautiously optimistic at the announcement of a TA. However, I was in complete shock as to the distribution of the lump sum, which excludes the portion of the crew force that probably needs it the most, those out on LTD. Crew members should not be excluded or discriminated against, due to their health status.
As we both know, the MEC directed three individuals, , to handle the lump sum distribution, to include those on LTD. The deal that they came up with and presented to the MEC, in contradiction to their instructions, and without legal ALPA bylaws basis, excluded pilots on LTD. The actions of these three individuals is clearly disparate treatment. Inexplicably, the MEC accepted their 11th hour proposal.
I reached out to my block rep, for a rationale and explanation, and he denied having been a part of this decision (which was not the case), and cites ALPA bylaws as an explanation. No ALPA bylaws reference has been provided.
I cannot sit idly by and let this injustice that affects as many as three hundred crew members go unaddressed, and without seeking justification.
I am asking for the TA to be corrected to include those on LTD in the lump sum distribution, as was initially directed and desired by the MEC. Also, I am asking you and the MEC to deal in the appropriate manner with block reps that do not follow mandates, in order to maintain the integrity of the Union and the trust of the crew force.
I am fully aware of the dispute process by which to appeal this decision, and the 5% set aside for this. Sadly, this is no guarantee justice will prevail. I do not feel that those on LTD should have to go through that process with the same union that denied payment in the first place. It is up to the MEC and our union to protect and look after every pilot group, and always do the right thing. It is crucial that our membership is fully aware of this matter. To that end, I am including distribution of this email to our membership.
I trust you will give this matter your utmost attention and look forward to a resolution that includes all pilots on LTD during the amendable period. In unity.

FDXAV8R

You are wasting your time CD is all purple. Time to give up daytime cubicle flying and get back to being a pilot Chuck--No big expense account on the line either.

busdriver12

Jeff, I totally agree. This is wrong. If this TA passes, pilots on LTD deserve the bonus as much as anyone. Someone out on LTD might have been here for 25 years and not get a bonus, while someone who has been here for a year would get it? Makes no sense to me.

And for anyone who thinks they don't really care, it doesn't affect them, think twice. You have no idea of what your status will be when this, or TA #2 version is signed.

Kipper

Jeff, glad you are doing well. Welcome back to the line. Yet another reason to send this TA back. Thanks for taking the time to educate us. We all need to spread the word and we all need to consider each pilot affected by this TA. Greed is not acceptable.

Rock

People were asking about the 5% holdback. This is the answer.

Dadof6

To the poster: Regardless of whether I agree with your position or not, you made a strategic error in publishing this communication as is, without redacting names.

(And yes, I have no problem identifying myself via PM if you really care.)

MaydayMark

Jeff,

Like you, I was out on LTD for much of the negotiation period. For about half of that time I was in some sort of RMG, DSA, SCK, VAC pay status which, of course meant I continued to pay union dues.

Personally, I'd consider myself lucky (maybe entitled) if my retro-pay was prorated to the period that I continued to pay union dues. I guess I'll just have to wait and see if the union thinks the same way? If there's any good news ... I don't "need" the money so it really would be an extra bonus.

Just for discussion purposes, I wasn't even in DR's block but he took the time to follow my case and ask if there was anything he could do to help me (I couldn't get MY block rep to return my email!*?). I was very impressed and thought he was a great guy! Thanks Don ...

YMMV

MM

FedElta

hey Do6

I agree with the propriety of redacting names that posts are addressed to, but sometimes, if the poster chooses to reveal his identity, it allows us to form an opinion on the merit of the post. How's that for a run-on sentence ????

Anyway, I hold JW in high regard, and that causes me to read his post closely.........as most folks who know me, also know I'm totally full of BS, It tells them to ignore my posts completely..

Regards,
Bill Gillespie

Dadof6

I hold you in high regard, sir, and we are in violent agreement! Concur regarding merit & weight of the post; however, those others named in the post could have easily been de-identified. And that is the point with which I take issue.

FedElta

Agreed...peace out...